on January 27, the Wall Street Journal ran an
op/ed by some distinguished researchers arguing that climate change
is no big deal. The op/ed,
No Need to Panic About Climate Change, asserted:
...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each
passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific
facts.Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming
for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming
establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of
climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't
account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty
that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes
computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and
clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the
smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing
projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated
how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this
embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat
from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that
happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
If there is not all that much warming, then why is there so much
brouhaha about it? The op/ed continued:
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing
government funding for academic research and a reason for
government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse
for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for
businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a
lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save
the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely
defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked
carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a
message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling
scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's
economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the
IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified
economically.
Not too surprisingly, those accused of being bought-and-paid for
alarmists were annoyed. Earlier this week, the Journal
published a response from 38 of the perturbed alarmists,
Check with Climate Scientists for Views on Climate. Their
letter asserted:
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In
science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and
expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you
need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who
has done a large number of the proposed operations.You published "No Need to Panic About Global
Warming" on climate change by the climate-science equivalent
of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own
fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science.
The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme
views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.
This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there
is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS.
And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to
state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was
settled science.
So, there! And what do "real" climate scientists
believe?
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not
abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on
record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting
hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods
when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming
is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep
ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are
consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate
system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of
human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that
warming.Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth,
actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in
the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing
systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other
aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together
with the long-term human-induced warming trend.
Question: How long before the short-term
variation with minimal warming [PDF] suggests that there
may be something wrong with the climate computer models? Just
asking.
In any case, the climate experts then go on to become the
equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology:
It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to
disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that
climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear
evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy
will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate
change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what
the doctor ordered.
Really? Scanning the list of signers of the letter one does not
find that any seem to have any special expertise on economics and
public policy. Perhaps the climate "dentists" are recommending open
heart surgery to treat tooth decay. Interestingly, the op/ed
to which they object does cite economic expertise in reaching its
conclusions:
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale
economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest
benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more
years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This
would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the
world that would like to share some of the same advantages of
material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully
developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses
would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that
more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an
overall benefit to the planet.
I will also mention that the public policy side of the Reason
Foundation which publishes this website released a report back in
December looking at the economics of climate change that reached
similar conclusions:
"Using the IPCC's own highest emission scenario, we show that by
2100 the Gross Domestic Product per capita of today's 'developing'
countries will be double that of the U.S. in 2006, even taking into
account any losses resulting from climate change. Thus developing
countries will have significantly more resources and better
technology to cope with climate change than even the U.S. does
today," Goklany says. "But these advances in adaptive capacity and
what they'll mean for our ability to cope with any potential
warming are virtually ignored by the IPCC when it assesses the
possible impact of global warming."The study outlines three approaches to tackling climate change:
cutting emissions of greenhouse gases; focused adaptation; and
economic growth. "The best strategy by far to combat climate change
is economic growth," says Julian Morris, the study's project
director and vice president at Reason Foundation. "Economic growth
is the best way to eliminate poverty; meanwhile, the resulting
wealth and technological advances will enable people better
to address all the problems they face, including any challenges
that global warming may present."
For what it's worth, the climate experts asserting consensus
about the reality of man-made global warming cannot, on the basis
of their climate expertise, assert a consensus on the policies
needed to address the problem.
Go here to read the
Reason Foundation study on the best policies to handle future
climate change.
No comments:
Post a Comment